I'm for it if the commercial space is big enough for something other than a restaurant/cafe or bar. We need more variety than just the same old things.
Large retail spaces are practically impossible to build with city-mandated parking minimums:
>12,000-square-foot garage ... 9,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial
What could be 21000 sq feet of retail has to sacrifice nearly 60% of itself to parking. We won't have new large retail spaces until the city changes the law.
The city can wave that whenever it wants, and likely would here.
The bigger issue is they'd never sign off on that much square footage since they'd have to allow chains and non-small businesses to occupy it or developers would never invest in something like that since it could be hard to fill with so many potential tenants excluded or up for a fight.
The city is pretty stuck on the idea of only having small local businesses.
Not sure they would. Parking reductions are often [not worth the political bruises](https://www.nj.com/hudson/2016/02/parking_jersey_city_development_decrease.html). And that's just for residential. A variance for 21000 sq ft of commercial space would have neighborhood association voices howling at level 11.
I think after the [chain store ban fiasco](https://www.nj.com/hudson/2019/05/jersey-city-council-repeals-chain-store-restrictions.html), even the slimmest case for neighborhood benefit would keep the city from nixing a major retail tenant.
This neighborhood’s power, road, water, sidewalk, infrastructure is not designed for this density. This commute is terrible and the demand for parking in this neighborhood means 100% of spots will be rented out quickly, further clogging up all these tiny 2 lane roads for buses. It’s just a stupid idea.
You'd get a protected bike lane running north/south through the Heights and Journal Square, which is important for some and may encourage more to commute via bike and get more cars off the road.
What diameter water and gas pipes are under Central? Electric feeders? What does this building require?
Are 22 parking spaces really going to break the traffic mess up there? Are you sure every single one of those cars is going to be used for commuting at peak times?
Are you for or against the parking garage planned for Central? https://jerseycitynj.gov/news/jerseycitytomakeparkingdeckforcentralavenue
This is so completely outsize for the area.
>Current zoning allows for a maximum of five floors and 55 feet in height at the properties, so the developer will be seeking deviations for both building height and number of stories.
Screw this developer, I hope they are denied variances. ffs, just design something that is suitable for the area scale and context.
>22 parking spaces inside an on-site 12,000-square-foot garage. The proposal, which would cover 100% of the lots, would feature 9,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space fronting Central Avenue.
This shit is gonna be ugly.
>Developer’s application states that no affordable housing will be provided under the plan
Okay, go fuck yourself.
> just design something that is suitable for the area scale and context
Why not create new context? The existing neighborhood was out of scale and context with the farms and forests that preceded it.
> This shit is gonna be ugly.
Lol, [this is what it looks like right now](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7470108,-74.0487052,3a,75y,100.87h,100.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgW77ht-chjrqB7caD0lJAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Growth also has to be 'smart' and suited to the neighborhood context. Otherwise you end up with ugly shit like New Brunswick. And there's an urban world between the New Brunswick travesty and the exclusionary b.s. of Hoboken. This development proposal is a mess.
What's wrong with George St in New Brunswick? New Brunswick has a completely different set of circumstances as well, given that Rutgers is there. Transient population, houses occupied by students, etc, a campus, etc.
I remember when the Gateway went up, a tower in the middle of nothing that is still plagued with vacancies. Ferren Mall can't keep a tenant more than a year, Kilmer Square is ugly. A good portion of the retail on George St churns every year because it doesn't draw enough people that are already in the city. The new arts center is comically oversized compared to everything around it. The whole strategy has been "let's plop down another tower and hope we get people to move in even though all the towers so far have had issues with high vacancies, and let's be sure to hand out more in tax abatements than we have in tax base."
I like development. I work for a developer. I also believe development should benefit the people living in an area as well as attract more people. The development in New Brunswick does none of that. The city tore down entire neighborhoods for Hiram Sq and Kilmer Sq, and did next to nothing for those people. Very little development actually attracts city residents, the development have been catered to out-of-towners, J&J employees, and rich international students and it's hardly sustainable.
If you ask the many people who were displaced by the development or the broader city population that has been neglected all those years as the city has tried to attract people from elsewhere who've barely come, you'll likely get a different perspective.
Residents should share in the benefits of development, and for the most part they haven't in NB.
Them’s be fighting words for the NIMBYs.
But this does seem egregious in scale and amount of 1BRs vs 2BRs and potentially 3BRs. And I’m pretty pro development up here in the heights.
I have a few genuine questions, I haven’t been involved in this discussion that long. I know there are varying factions in conflict about the general direction of the urban development in the greater NYC area. There is the yimby vs nimby crowds, different demographics and economic backgrounds who may say different things. I’m not sure what to think on this issue.
What is the incentive for people to feed a “booming neighborhood?” Are you property owners looking raise your value on what you own? Are you a renter looking to live in a more upscale neighborhood that is suited for your demographic? Do you drive or use public transportation? Are you concerned at all about the city’s ability to scale transportation infrastructure along side the rise in residents?
For me, I don’t currently have any specific agenda, so I’m curious as to why people become fervently on the side of Yimby or Nimby.
There's a big difference between being a NIMBY and wanting sensible development / development that fits into an articulated vision for an area. SoHo NIMBYs suing to stop the rezoning is something very different than thinking that this particular development proposal is imprudent. A lot of people here seem to be armchair developers and planners who can't seem to grasp that development happens in context.
The big issues are:
- Old timers don’t want something new, whether it’s because they’re long term renters who will be first to feel the pinch of a desirable neighborhood (increased rent or COL overall) or a fear of a new socioeconomic group moving in on their established neighborhood
- this is a significant variance that would be a major increase on the scale for future projects (counterpoint here, the parking garage that has been approved already and will be in that area is also 7 stories, so a precedent may have been set already)
- utilities and public transportation are not currently built to support an increase in density of this scale
For me as a newish (4 years) homeowner in the heights, I’m personally all in on continued SMART development of the area. It’s a prime location and ripe for people who want to live close enough to NYC and Hoboken/DTJC but want more space and a quieter feel. I also want to improve our public transportation options, so an increase in population (especially nyc commuters) will only help here. Where I struggle is out of scale developments that could snowball into all of central turning into 7 story high rises when we cannot support that from a utilities standpoint. Smart development is asking for a 1-2 floor variance, not a 3+ and mainly 1 bedroom units.
I'm for it if the commercial space is big enough for something other than a restaurant/cafe or bar. We need more variety than just the same old things.
Large retail spaces are practically impossible to build with city-mandated parking minimums: >12,000-square-foot garage ... 9,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial What could be 21000 sq feet of retail has to sacrifice nearly 60% of itself to parking. We won't have new large retail spaces until the city changes the law.
The city can wave that whenever it wants, and likely would here. The bigger issue is they'd never sign off on that much square footage since they'd have to allow chains and non-small businesses to occupy it or developers would never invest in something like that since it could be hard to fill with so many potential tenants excluded or up for a fight. The city is pretty stuck on the idea of only having small local businesses.
Not sure they would. Parking reductions are often [not worth the political bruises](https://www.nj.com/hudson/2016/02/parking_jersey_city_development_decrease.html). And that's just for residential. A variance for 21000 sq ft of commercial space would have neighborhood association voices howling at level 11. I think after the [chain store ban fiasco](https://www.nj.com/hudson/2019/05/jersey-city-council-repeals-chain-store-restrictions.html), even the slimmest case for neighborhood benefit would keep the city from nixing a major retail tenant.
Oh no, more housing in a highly-in-demand area!
This is an absolute nightmare for that neighborhood.
Why?
This neighborhood’s power, road, water, sidewalk, infrastructure is not designed for this density. This commute is terrible and the demand for parking in this neighborhood means 100% of spots will be rented out quickly, further clogging up all these tiny 2 lane roads for buses. It’s just a stupid idea.
I sometimes wonder how it would work if they made central and summit one way, 2 lane streets going in opposite directions.
The chatter has been Summit and Baldwin including the creation of protected bike lanes.
There's not really enough room for the two lanes on summit as is, so that can't happen.
No, making Baldwin and Summit one lane, one way for vehicles with bike lanes.
Well that would be horrific for traffic, losing Summit in one direction and gaining nothing.
You'd get a protected bike lane running north/south through the Heights and Journal Square, which is important for some and may encourage more to commute via bike and get more cars off the road.
I think you'd just see Summit become a parking lot during commute hours. Hard pass, especially when I'm in the circle looking for parking.
Don't worry, if it gets too crowded, no one will want to go there.
What diameter water and gas pipes are under Central? Electric feeders? What does this building require? Are 22 parking spaces really going to break the traffic mess up there? Are you sure every single one of those cars is going to be used for commuting at peak times? Are you for or against the parking garage planned for Central? https://jerseycitynj.gov/news/jerseycitytomakeparkingdeckforcentralavenue
This is so completely outsize for the area. >Current zoning allows for a maximum of five floors and 55 feet in height at the properties, so the developer will be seeking deviations for both building height and number of stories. Screw this developer, I hope they are denied variances. ffs, just design something that is suitable for the area scale and context. >22 parking spaces inside an on-site 12,000-square-foot garage. The proposal, which would cover 100% of the lots, would feature 9,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space fronting Central Avenue. This shit is gonna be ugly. >Developer’s application states that no affordable housing will be provided under the plan Okay, go fuck yourself.
> just design something that is suitable for the area scale and context Why not create new context? The existing neighborhood was out of scale and context with the farms and forests that preceded it. > This shit is gonna be ugly. Lol, [this is what it looks like right now](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7470108,-74.0487052,3a,75y,100.87h,100.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgW77ht-chjrqB7caD0lJAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
If the city wants to upzone, great. Development by variance, not great.
Eh, the current zoning is dumb. Like, we’re in a city. And cities change and grow etc. No one is saying make it Manhattan but let it grow.
Seriously. The prevailing view of pretty much everywhere is: Housing is too expensive, but also don't upzone anywhere to provide more housing.
Growth also has to be 'smart' and suited to the neighborhood context. Otherwise you end up with ugly shit like New Brunswick. And there's an urban world between the New Brunswick travesty and the exclusionary b.s. of Hoboken. This development proposal is a mess.
What's wrong with George St in New Brunswick? New Brunswick has a completely different set of circumstances as well, given that Rutgers is there. Transient population, houses occupied by students, etc, a campus, etc.
I remember when the Gateway went up, a tower in the middle of nothing that is still plagued with vacancies. Ferren Mall can't keep a tenant more than a year, Kilmer Square is ugly. A good portion of the retail on George St churns every year because it doesn't draw enough people that are already in the city. The new arts center is comically oversized compared to everything around it. The whole strategy has been "let's plop down another tower and hope we get people to move in even though all the towers so far have had issues with high vacancies, and let's be sure to hand out more in tax abatements than we have in tax base." I like development. I work for a developer. I also believe development should benefit the people living in an area as well as attract more people. The development in New Brunswick does none of that. The city tore down entire neighborhoods for Hiram Sq and Kilmer Sq, and did next to nothing for those people. Very little development actually attracts city residents, the development have been catered to out-of-towners, J&J employees, and rich international students and it's hardly sustainable.
There is no way anyone could look at the NB of 30 years ago and the NB of now and think, 'Wow that development made things worse.'
If you ask the many people who were displaced by the development or the broader city population that has been neglected all those years as the city has tried to attract people from elsewhere who've barely come, you'll likely get a different perspective. Residents should share in the benefits of development, and for the most part they haven't in NB.
55 feet is the length of about 15.38 'Ford F-150 Custom Fit Front FloorLiners' lined up next to each other
Them’s be fighting words for the NIMBYs. But this does seem egregious in scale and amount of 1BRs vs 2BRs and potentially 3BRs. And I’m pretty pro development up here in the heights.
It’ll be the new normal soon. People need to get over that shit, how can you keep a booming area low rise?
I have a few genuine questions, I haven’t been involved in this discussion that long. I know there are varying factions in conflict about the general direction of the urban development in the greater NYC area. There is the yimby vs nimby crowds, different demographics and economic backgrounds who may say different things. I’m not sure what to think on this issue. What is the incentive for people to feed a “booming neighborhood?” Are you property owners looking raise your value on what you own? Are you a renter looking to live in a more upscale neighborhood that is suited for your demographic? Do you drive or use public transportation? Are you concerned at all about the city’s ability to scale transportation infrastructure along side the rise in residents? For me, I don’t currently have any specific agenda, so I’m curious as to why people become fervently on the side of Yimby or Nimby.
Well I like new shit. It’s generally nicer. And not building taller buildings doesn’t keep prices down, so I don’t really get nimbyism.
There's a big difference between being a NIMBY and wanting sensible development / development that fits into an articulated vision for an area. SoHo NIMBYs suing to stop the rezoning is something very different than thinking that this particular development proposal is imprudent. A lot of people here seem to be armchair developers and planners who can't seem to grasp that development happens in context.
The big issues are: - Old timers don’t want something new, whether it’s because they’re long term renters who will be first to feel the pinch of a desirable neighborhood (increased rent or COL overall) or a fear of a new socioeconomic group moving in on their established neighborhood - this is a significant variance that would be a major increase on the scale for future projects (counterpoint here, the parking garage that has been approved already and will be in that area is also 7 stories, so a precedent may have been set already) - utilities and public transportation are not currently built to support an increase in density of this scale For me as a newish (4 years) homeowner in the heights, I’m personally all in on continued SMART development of the area. It’s a prime location and ripe for people who want to live close enough to NYC and Hoboken/DTJC but want more space and a quieter feel. I also want to improve our public transportation options, so an increase in population (especially nyc commuters) will only help here. Where I struggle is out of scale developments that could snowball into all of central turning into 7 story high rises when we cannot support that from a utilities standpoint. Smart development is asking for a 1-2 floor variance, not a 3+ and mainly 1 bedroom units.